Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Effectiveness of an outpatient urine screening program.

C G Fraser, B C Smith, M J Peake

    Clinical Chemistry
    |December 1, 1977
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study examined the usefulness of routine outpatient urinalysis screenings in a population of 2600 patients. Researchers found that only 13 patients had new clinical or treatment changes based on abnormal results. Most abnormal findings did not lead to any action, suggesting the program added costs without significant benefits. The authors concluded that diagnostic resources should be used more efficiently and that routine urinalysis may not be cost-effective in this setting.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Remarks on Delivering the After-Birth.

    The Chicago medical journal·2023
    Same author

    Intussusception-Distensile Enemata.

    Atlanta medical and surgical journal·2022
    Same author

    Embedded microcomputer-based force plate system validation when evaluating lameness severity differentiation under an induced synovitis model in lactating dairy cattle.

    Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience·2021
    Same author

    Scottish Bowel Screening Programme colonoscopy quality - scope for improvement?

    Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland·2018
    Same author

    Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

    The British journal of surgery·2018
    Same author

    Steerable THz pulses from thin emitters via optical pulse-front tilt.

    Optics express·2016

    Area of Science:

    • Clinical diagnostics in primary care
    • Urological screening protocols
    • Health economics in diagnostic testing

    Background:

    Prior research has shown that routine diagnostic screening can sometimes lead to early detection of health issues. However, no prior work had resolved whether this applies to outpatient urinalysis programs. It was already known that urinalysis can detect abnormalities like infections or kidney dysfunction. Yet, the clinical utility of such screenings in asymptomatic populations remained uncertain. This gap motivated the need to assess the real-world impact of these programs. Existing studies did not address the cost-benefit ratio specifically for outpatient settings. The effectiveness of diagnostic interventions in influencing treatment decisions was not well established. This study aimed to clarify the role of urinalysis in routine outpatient care.

    Purpose Of The Study:

    The aim of this study was to determine whether a routine outpatient urinalysis program improves patient outcomes. Researchers focused on a specific population of 2600 patients to evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of such screenings. The primary question was whether abnormal urine results led to meaningful clinical changes. The motivation stemmed from rising healthcare costs and the need for cost-effective diagnostic practices. The study sought to measure the proportion of abnormal results that influenced treatment decisions. No prior work had directly addressed the cost-benefit of outpatient urinalysis programs. The researchers aimed to identify if such screenings provided clinical value or merely increased expenses. This study fills a gap in understanding the practical utility of routine diagnostic testing.

    Keywords:
    urinalysis diagnostic impactoutpatient diagnostic programshealthcare cost analysisclinical screening effectiveness

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Only 13 patients had new clinical or therapeutic changes based on abnormal results, suggesting limited benefit.

    Researchers reviewed any new clinical investigations or treatment modifications initiated due to abnormal test results.

    The authors found that 150 cases either had no follow-up or no positive action was taken, indicating limited clinical relevance.

    Patient records were used to track whether abnormal results led to new diagnostic tests or treatment changes.

    The study concluded the program increased hospital costs without significant patient benefits, suggesting it was not cost-effective.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Methods:

    The study involved a sample of 2600 outpatient participants who underwent routine urinalysis screening. Researchers recorded all abnormal results and tracked any subsequent clinical actions taken. Follow-up procedures included reviewing new diagnostic tests or treatment modifications initiated. The data collection focused on whether abnormal results led to actionable clinical decisions. The study design used a retrospective analysis of patient records and test outcomes. No new diagnostic tools were introduced; the focus was on existing urinalysis protocols. The researchers categorized results as either leading to clinical changes or not. The study did not include interventions beyond standard diagnostic procedures.

    Main Results:

    Out of 2600 patients, 182 had abnormal urinalysis results, with 189 total abnormalities recorded. Only 13 patients experienced any new clinical or therapeutic modifications due to these findings. The remaining 150 cases either had no follow-up or no actionable changes were made. These findings suggest limited clinical utility of the screening program. The majority of abnormal results did not influence treatment decisions. The study found that the program increased hospital costs without clear patient benefits. No significant correlation was found between abnormal results and improved outcomes. The data indicate that routine urinalysis may not be cost-effective in this setting.

    Conclusions:

    The authors concluded that the urinalysis screening program did not provide significant clinical benefits in this study. The findings suggest that abnormal results rarely led to actionable treatment changes. The program appeared to increase hospital costs without improving patient care. These results align with the authors' hypothesis that routine screening may not be cost-effective. The study supports the need for more targeted diagnostic approaches. No prior work had demonstrated such a clear lack of benefit from this type of screening. The authors propose that diagnostic resources should be allocated more efficiently. These conclusions emphasize the importance of evaluating diagnostic programs for real-world impact.

    The authors propose more efficient allocation of diagnostic resources rather than routine screening programs.